ICA remains committed to Coalition

Despite recent remarks by one high-profile ICA member, Gerard Clum, DC, the leadership of the International Chiropractors Association has reiterated its strong commitment to the Chiropractic Coalition, the profession's only ongoing effort to create a unified legislative presence in Washington.

As reported by one critic, who dubs himself the "Lord of the Galactic Online Alliance" in his frequent bursts of online vitriol, Clum made a comment that "Forming an alliance [the Chiropractic Coalition] with the WCA [World Chiropractic Alliance] was the dumbest thing that the ICA has ever done. Actually, not much is going on with the relationship and I hope it dies a natural death."

The self-proclaimed "Lord" – who received the ACA's “service to chiropractic” award in 2003 -- said he got the quote second hand from Dr. Cynthia Vaughn, an ACA delegate and wife of past ACA president James Edwards. Clum reportedly made the comment at a World Federation of Chiropractic meeting in Australia. (Note: The decision was made not to include the critic's name in this story in order to avoid any perception of personal attack on him.)

In the interest of fairness, Terry A. Rondberg, DC, president of the WCA, emailed Dr. Clum and asked him about the statement. Dr. Clum's response, addressed to both Dr. Rondberg and the "Lord" was:

"You have both expressed interest in my comments made during a meeting of the WFC Council in Sydney Australia (a meeting of less than 20 people) with respect to the ICA’s involvement in the Coalition with the FSCO and the WCA.

"As I recall the matter I was asked to comment on ICA’s involvement in the Coalition. This question came from Cindy Vaughn who was representing ACA to the Council of the WFC. I responded indicating that I thought that the involvement of the ICA in the Coalition was a mistake and unwise. I also expressed the view that I would be happy if ICA were no longer involved in the Coalition.

"My comments have been reported as 'denouncing the WCA'. This is not correct. I spoke about the political wisdom or lack thereof, of ICA being involved in the Coalition, I do not recall making any comment about the WCA or the FSCO.

"I would appreciate it both of you would feel free to check with me before reporting something I am purported to have said. I am rather available and telephones and e-mail do reach all the way to California."

The lively email discussion that followed helped Coalition members better understand Dr. Clum's position, and reinforced the commitment to the Coalition by the ICA.

In a separate message to Dr. Rondberg, Dr. Clum added:

"I was asked by Dr. Vaughan from the ACA about the Coalition. My response, as I recall it, was directed to the coalition concept in general and not at the WCA or FSCO.

I was never in favor of the Coalition. From the perspective of ICA I thought it was an ill-advised effort. I continue to have that view. That being said I have never promoted or circulated that perspective (unless asked) but that is how I felt. When I was asked point blank about it I responded with the view that ICA was not served by the Coalition and that I felt it would be better if it fell by the wayside.

Thank you for asking about my thoughts on the matter if you are going to run something as a follow up to one of [The Lord's] rants."

Dr. Rondberg responded to Dr. Clum:

"Thank you for your clarification. I'm relieved to find out that your statements were not a direct attack on the World Chiropractic Alliance and/or Federation of Straight Chiropractors and Organizations.

"I still must question why, as a high-profile representative of the ICA, you would publicly denounce your organization's efforts to nurture professional unity and sabotage its efforts to create an effective political force that has been extremely successful in Washington.

"Although the WCA champions freedom of thought and speech, and encourages internal dissent, I can't recall a single instance when one of our Board members thought it appropriate to give our enemies that kind of ammunition to use against us. At a time when the ACA is continuing to work to absorb the ICA, I do not see the wisdom in eroding the profession's confidence in the ICA.

"Frankly, everyone involved in the Coalition has been extremely enthusiastic about what it has accomplished and what it can achieve in the future. Unlike the ACA - which went on record saying it will not engage in joint legislative action with any other organization - the ICA, WCA and FSCO (along with numerous other organizations affiliated with the Coalition) think that working together toward common goals is in the best interest of the profession and the public.

"Instead of giving the ICA a black eye by condemning its actions, perhaps it would be better to help advance its objectives by supporting its actions and its involvement in the profession's only multi-organization political action effort.

"As G. K. Chesterton said: 'We are all in the same boat in a stormy sea, and we owe each other a terrible loyalty.'"

The conversation continued with Dr. Clum reply to Dr. Rondberg:

"It seems somewhat pointless to answer your question as you have already drawn all sorts of conclusions about my motives, what they mean etc.

"While you may view the outcomes of the Coalition to be quite positive and from the perspective of WCA perhaps they are, from the ICA perspective I don't see the gain.

"From your closing quote you seem to interpret total agreement and acquiescence with loyalty. I don't. "

Others added to the conversation. Dr. Matthew McCoy, a member of the WCA Board of Directors asked Dr. Clum:

"Why do you feel that way about the ICA's involvement?"

Dr. Clum responded:

"I simply did not and do not seen the gain for ICA in the matter, there may be gain for the WCA and/or the FSCO but I do not see the gain for ICA."

Dr. McCoy, apparently taken aback by that response, replied:

"Is it really about what the gain is for the ICA or the WCA or the FSCO though? ... In my mind it is about what the gain is for the profession and the consumer and I can't think of a single way in which the Coalition has been bad for the profession or consumer."

Brian Stenzler, DC, a member of the WCA International Board of Governors, told Dr. Clum:

"I have done my best over the past years to remain as "apolitical" as possible. I have supported the ICA since the beginning of my short Chiropractic career, even as a student starting back in 1994. I still practice full time and adjust subluxations everyday on as many people as the universe sends into my offices. Being an Executive Board member of the New York Chiropractic Council and a member of the WCA Board of Governors has given me the opportunity to really help the advancement of chiropractic, without compromise.

"In all of these emails, you keep stating that the ICA has little to nothing to gain in being a part of the Chiropractic Coalition. What I am curious to know is do you not see what CHIROPRACTIC has gained from the unified action? Is Chiropractic's gain not an ICA gain?

"I don't think that the WCA or FSCO had any ulterior motives for forming the Coalition with the ICA, other than the advancement of Chiropractic and I don't believe that any organization has gained anymore than any individual Chiropractor has from the efforts of the CHIROPRACTORS who help work with the Coalition. It's not about the ICA, WCA, FSCO or even the ACA, it's purely about ChiropracTIC! I have never seen so many Chiropractors with different political affiliations work together so beautifully and effectively as I have seen for the past two years with the existence of the Coalition. I think that alone has helped Chiropractic in ways we will never be able to quantify. I am proud to be a Chiropractor and proud to be part of the solution!

"(You have been a good friend to the NY Chiropractic Council over the years and I want you to know that I appreciate that. This letter has been written strictly by me, and do not necessarily represent the opinion of the NY Chiropractic Council or any other member of the Council. I wrote this as a Chiropractor, not as a Board member of the Council.)"

By that point, Dr. Clum was obviously tiring of the exchange and wrote back:

"You indicated I keep saying etc. If I keep being asked I will keep giving the same answer.

"I do not ascribe any ulterior motives to anyone. I am not being critical of anyone. I was asked a question and I responded honestly. I agree with you that the good of the chiropractic profession or better yet the good of the consumer of chiropractic is the ultimate goal. The strategies and approaches to that end are varied and multiple.

"In closing I would like to offer the perspective that honorable people can have honorable disagreements."

Ending the discussion on a positive note was ICA Chairman of the Board, Michael McLean, DC, who stated:

"Dr. Clum has a right to express his opinion on the Coalition just as I have a right to express my opinion on the WFC. It was perhaps an unfortunate choice of timing, since Gerry's presence as an ICA representative at the WFC meeting gave the appearance of an official ICA policy statement. It wasn't.

"The ICA is committed to the Chiropractic Coalition as a practical union to further chiropractic as a profession on the political level, as well as a place for the various associations to meet and better understand one another. As Board Chair, I can assure you of my personal commitment to perpetuation of the Coalition, and that President John Maltby is in complete agreement with me on this. As well, there has not been one note of dissention from this stance by any member of the Board of Directors.

"Additionally, I believe the synergy we create is much greater than the sum of our parts. The best is yet to come."